Politically, the best way to oppose the Bushites on Social Security is to pound this message:
The Republicans want to cut your Social Security benefits.
Tactically, we have to learn from Rove -- keep it simple and repeat, repeat, repeat.
If this demonstrably true message gets across, then 2006 will be, for the Dems, like 1994 was for the Rethugs.
Alas, the M$M seems to have a problem in reporting on this basic truth. They will demand that the Dems have a plan to deal with the notional Social Security "crisis."
OK, so here's my plan:
Remove the cap on the employer part of Social Security tax on incomes over $90,000 (or whatever the current cut-off point is).
The beauty of this is that we're not proposing to raise taxes on upper middle class and rich voters. We would be taxing payrolls, not people. If companies think some employees are worth mega-salaries, then they'll just have to pay a little more in payroll taxes.
And we wouldn't have to read bullshit stories about those poor little rich people who would not be getting a decent "investment" return on their taxes paid into Social Security.
Imagine what 6.2 percent of the billions in high-income payrolls would bring in. If some corporation wants to pay its CEO $10 million, fine, but that would be another $600,000 or so to support the best general welfare program ever.
Right now, the system is solvent for 40-plus years. It seems to me that this extra revenue stream would make it fiscally bullet-proof forever.
I'm no economist, but somebody out there surely is. I wonder, what would 6.2 percent of incomes over $90,000 produce every year, and what would be the long-term impact on Social Security of such a relatively painless tax increase?
Anybody out there have an idea?